While agents at the top level of the game may not be obligatory, they are most certainly customary, surely? Also, loved the bit about footballers not "performing with a theatrical bent"! The tribunal have obviously not seen a football match for some time, then! :)
I do wonder why any household with a combined income of £50K+ actually needs Child Benefit. In principal, but not in practice, like a lot of things, HICBC is right. However, ultimately it should be means tested, rather than a convoluted and cumbersome tax introduced at the top end. The cut off should be £40K max.
"In this case the NCA just need to do their job with the mountain of information they already hold." In our profession's case they need to actually look at that mountain of reports we send them, and acknowledge they've done so. That would make this time consuming nonsense seem at least partly worthwhile.
"... particularly from the Tories who historically are supposed to favour small business." At least that particular con is now in the open, although most voters can't see beyond that other great Tory con, controlling immigration, which they have spectacularly failed at. At least it looks like they're in for a well deserved and very overdue thumping in the forthcoming GE!
"However, HMRC still requires individuals in this position to confirm this by emailing or calling HMRC’s Individuals and Small-Business Compliance Directorate."
Emailing?! Crikey! At last! :)
The last paragraph proves what an arcane, pedantic waste of time and effort this case was! People lost their livelihoods because of this nonsense. This whole article reads like an accountant's take on Dickens. I particularly laughed at "... the FTT noted that DuelFuel’s cake and brownie were “cake-like” but heavier and denser than expected, and there was a “slightly unpleasant mouth feel”. :)
Given that HMRC don't have the staff to run their "services" as it is, what do we expect them to be able to do with all this new information provided by the likes of eBay? Very little, or nothing is my guess.
£8K costs? Ridiculous and extortionate. As a matter of interest, who regulates these draconian penalties, and who regulates the costs? No-one it seems. I appreciate that there have to be penalties for non-compliance, but ICAEW seems to be little more than a grand money making scheme and a law unto itself.
I wonder what on Earth (or maybe out in the cosmos somewhere) made HMRC think she was "an employer and partner" rather than a humble employee? Staggering incompetence, followed by a Kafkaesque nightmare! Welcome to HM Revenue & Customs in the 21st century!
My answers
While agents at the top level of the game may not be obligatory, they are most certainly customary, surely? Also, loved the bit about footballers not "performing with a theatrical bent"! The tribunal have obviously not seen a football match for some time, then! :)
I do wonder why any household with a combined income of £50K+ actually needs Child Benefit. In principal, but not in practice, like a lot of things, HICBC is right. However, ultimately it should be means tested, rather than a convoluted and cumbersome tax introduced at the top end. The cut off should be £40K max.
"In this case the NCA just need to do their job with the mountain of information they already hold." In our profession's case they need to actually look at that mountain of reports we send them, and acknowledge they've done so. That would make this time consuming nonsense seem at least partly worthwhile.
"... particularly from the Tories who historically are supposed to favour small business." At least that particular con is now in the open, although most voters can't see beyond that other great Tory con, controlling immigration, which they have spectacularly failed at. At least it looks like they're in for a well deserved and very overdue thumping in the forthcoming GE!
"However, HMRC still requires individuals in this position to confirm this by emailing or calling HMRC’s Individuals and Small-Business Compliance Directorate."
Emailing?! Crikey! At last! :)
The last paragraph proves what an arcane, pedantic waste of time and effort this case was! People lost their livelihoods because of this nonsense. This whole article reads like an accountant's take on Dickens. I particularly laughed at "... the FTT noted that DuelFuel’s cake and brownie were “cake-like” but heavier and denser than expected, and there was a “slightly unpleasant mouth feel”. :)
Given that HMRC don't have the staff to run their "services" as it is, what do we expect them to be able to do with all this new information provided by the likes of eBay? Very little, or nothing is my guess.
£8K costs? Ridiculous and extortionate. As a matter of interest, who regulates these draconian penalties, and who regulates the costs? No-one it seems. I appreciate that there have to be penalties for non-compliance, but ICAEW seems to be little more than a grand money making scheme and a law unto itself.
I wouldn't thank that garullous troublemaking windbag for anything, he's done enough damage already. Couldn't have happened to a "nicer" fella!
I wonder what on Earth (or maybe out in the cosmos somewhere) made HMRC think she was "an employer and partner" rather than a humble employee? Staggering incompetence, followed by a Kafkaesque nightmare! Welcome to HM Revenue & Customs in the 21st century!